Posted on 08/14/2002 1:42:48 PM PDT by krodriguesdc
Mumps and the MMR vaccine
Evening Standard editorial comment
Parents have good reason to be concerned about the possibility of a mumps outbreak in London. The epidemiological history of this infectious disease suggests that mumps is unpleasant but hardly ever fatal to children. In rare cases it causes meningitis or encephalitis; it can also cause infertility in boys. Before there was a vaccine for mumps, it tended to kill no more than five people a year.
Yet it is impossible to be certain that half a century of vaccination against the disease will not have weakened our natural immunity to the extent that a renewed outbreak would produce unusually severe symptoms.
This is why the near quadrupling of mumps cases in the capital to 112 in 2001, and the 30 per cent rise in the last quarter over the previous three months, is particularly worrying, given that clinics across the country have been without supplies of the mumps vaccine for up to six months and do not know when they can expect fresh supplies.
The Government will be blamed for creating this situation, and endangering childrens' lives, by insisting that the triple MMR vaccine be used to inoculate children against measles, mumps and rubella, but it is not directly the fault of the Department of Health. The reason why there is such a shortage of mumps vaccine is that not much of it is being manufactured (none to UK licence specifications) and the logical reason for this is that every country in the developed world except Britain has accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence that MMR does not trigger autism in young children. This is not to say that blame should rest with parents who refuse the triple vaccine.
Ever since Dr Andrew Wakefield produced his own variant findings, which suggested a possible link between MMR and autism and bowel disorders, enough anecdotal evidence has emerged that the MMR vaccination appears to coincide with the onset of autism in young children to convince many parents that they must be connected. Pressure is therefore growing to make it the responsibility of the Government to accelerate the production of mumps vaccine and then provide all three vaccinations separately on the NHS. This will be the first major challenge for the new public health minister David Lammy, and perhaps the toughest he will ever have to face.
This was his initial comment:
"although nothing conclusive has been found yet - strong implications have been seen - I'll bet as researchers continue looking at these vaccines and adverse events a conclusive link will be found..."
He posted the abstract to indicate that the DPT vax increased the incidence of SIDS. However, just looking at the title of the study should clue you in that it says just the opposite:
" The protective effect of immunisation against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) in relation to sudden infant death syndrome."
Now I don't know about you, but that seems to me to indicate they feel DPT LOWERS the chances of SIDS. But in case you aren't convinced, the first line of the abstract should clarify:
"Epidemiological evidence indicates infants immunised against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) are at decreased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)."
Apparently krodriguesdc (or who ever posted this to an anti-vax webiste) felt this one sentence represented a negative effect for the vaccine:
"While DPT immunisation might prevent some unexplained infant deaths due to asymptomatic whooping cough, these data indicate that immunisation with DPT also induces antibodies cross-reactive with pyrogenic staphylococcal toxins implicated in many cases of SIDS."
However, all that is saying is that, of the two modalities that may increase the risk of SIDS, asymptomatic whooping cough and pyrogenic staphylococcal toxins, the DPT vax may not only treat the whooping cough but also stimulate the production of antibodies that will react with the staph toxins.
So I'm not sure where krodriguesdc got this study, but it seems to say just the opposite of what he says it does.
krodriguesdc, could you point me to the website that has this?
I doubt it.
There is NO DEBATE. Only people wearing tin hats have these kids of comments.
What kind of definition of "thought control" do you have?
I'm voicing a legitimate concern that these medical threads are inappropriate to Free Republic because of the medical liability issues involved.
You are clearly NOT a healthcare provider. Exactly how is it that you can offer medical advice without legitimacy?
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 1999 Aug 1;25(1-2):183-92
The protective effect of immunisation against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) in relation to sudden infant death syndrome.
Essery SD, Raza MW, Zorgani A, MacKenzie DA, James VS, Weir DM, Busuttil A, Hallam N, Blackwell C.
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Edinburgh, UK.
1. Introduction
Epidemiological studies in the USA demonstrated
that infants who were not immunised for diphtheria,
pertussis and tetanus (DPT) or infants immunised
late were at increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) [1,2]. An increase in SIDS deaths
was noted in Sweden when pertussis immunisation
was discontinued [3]. There have not been, however,
any detailed studies to explain the biological interactions
underlying the association between the protective
effect of immunisation and SIDS.
Although the decline in cot deaths in Britain has
been attributed to the campaign started in October
1991 to discourage the prone sleeping position, there
was a major change in infant health care practice
that affected all infants and predated the `back to
sleep' campaign by a year. In October 1990 the infant
immunisation schedule in Britain was changed
to begin at 2 months rather than 3 months. This
change appears to coincide with the beginning of
the decline in SIDS deaths in Scotland [19]. These
observations prompted the studies presented here on
the induction of antibodies that could contribute to
reducing the risk of SIDS.
The objectives of the study were: (1) to determine
if the DPT vaccine induced antibodies cross-reactive
with the staphylococcal toxins; (2) to determine if
antibodies to the PT and the staphylococcal toxins
were present in the sera of women during late pregnancy;
(3) to examine the effects of infant immunisation
on levels of antibodies to PT and the staphylococcal
toxins; (4) to assess the effects of changes
in immunisation schedules in the UK on the incidence
and age distribution of SIDS.
3.6. Age of SIDS victims in relation to changes in
immunization
The incidences of SIDS in Scotland for the years
1986^1990 are compared with those for 1991^1996
by age at death in months (Fig. 6). Compared with
the incidences for 1986^1990, the incidences for
1991^1996 showed a consistent pattern of decline
in the children 2 months of age or older. The greatest
differences were observed during the first 6 months
of life, particularly at 4 months of age (ratio of the
1991^1996 rates to the 1986^1990 rates= 0.31).
4. Discussion
There were reports in the early 1980s that DPT
immunisation might be a cause of SIDS [21]. Extensive
studies in the USA found a protective effect
associated with immunisation; infants who were
unimmunised or immunised late were at increased risk
of SIDS [1,2]. The evidence for asymptomatic
whooping cough being a cause of SIDS is circumstantial;
however, there is increasing evidence for the
role of staphylococcal toxins in many of these
deaths. S. aureus also best fits the model proposed
in the common bacterial toxin hypothesis by Morris
et al. [22,23], and S. aureus is the predominant isolate
from healthy infants in the 2^4-month age range
[24,25]. The first aim of this study was to determine
if the DPT vaccine induced antibodies that could
provide some protection against the staphylococcal
toxins, and if so, which component was responsible.
The second aim was to obtain evidence that antibodies
to the toxins were found during pregnancy and in
infants and what effect changes in the immunisation
schedule had on their levels.
4.6. Conclusions
The earlier immunisation of infants may prevent a
small number of deaths due to asymptomatic pertussis
infection suggested by epidemiological studies
[4,5] and detection of DNA from these bacteria in
some SIDS infants [6]. Our studies indicate that immunisation
with DPT induces antibodies cross-reactive
with the staphylococcal toxins identified in many
SIDS infants. It is possible that part of the protective
effect of DPT vaccination in relation to SIDS is due
to induction of antibodies which are capable of reducing
the effects induced by the pyrogenic staphylococcal
toxins. The decreases in maternal antibodies
to PT, TSST-1 and SEC in late pregnancy suggest
some infants might have lower levels of antibodies
than others against the toxins implicated in SIDS.
Studies by another group found that the proportion
of SIDS infants in which antibodies to a selection of
bacterial toxins were detected was lower than for a
comparison group of live infants [33]. If infants
could be screened for IgG levels to bacterial toxins
identified in SIDS infants, newborn infants with low
levels of maternal antibodies to the toxins might be
covered by passive immunisation or active
immunisation. The possibility of further reducing
the incidence of SIDS by enhancing the passive immunity
of infants to these toxins through boosting
maternal antibody levels is an intriguing possibility
that requires detailed examination.
The "doctor" may not like it, but MMR vaccine safety is actually a serious medical debate. It's being debated in medical journals and it's being debated in congressional hearings. If he doesn't like it, that's just tough.
And while we're at it, just because I'm defending the right of the anti-vaccine people to speak out doesn't mean I agree with them. Personally, I think we've had enough of people trying to shut others up around here.
There is a reason the state law precludes lay people from offering medical advice. It is to stop anecdotal stories from adversely impacting (or even harming) the American populace....these incessant postings regarding vaccines are bordering on illegal conduct....The staff of Free Republic needs to think twice before permitting Free Republic to become a conduit for discussion of medical cases....bonesmccoy
These sound more like the words of a (practiced intimidation) tort attorney than a physician to me. I am not an expert in medical matters (allow me to say that up front in order to satisfy your requirement that we FReepers who are not medical doctors provide such a disclaimer), but, having been around FreeRepublic for going on four years, and having read my share of threads relating to medical/drug matters, I believe you are an alarmist.
The large majority of FReepers who post on such threads are intelligent, analytical, critical thinkers, who are not embracers of the typical modern American herd mentality. Their natural penchant for independent thought, in combination with a rising (justified) mistrust of (1) government (leaning increasingly toward socialism in every field, including healthcare), (2) sometimes unethical, profit-at-any-cost business practices, and (3) a medical profession which decreasingly prioritizes patient well-being in favor of other less altruistic considerations, has given rise to very significant debates on this forum as regards many medical matters.
Few FReepers ever offer ‘medical advice’ in such debates. They simply voice their opinions (sometimes skeptical and cynical), cite their reasons for their skepticism or cynicism, and exchange ideas with other non-medical (but no less intelligent, no less concerned, no less sincere, and no less free to speak on health-related matters than someone sporting an M.D. suffix) FReepers. Some of us even listen intently as you medical professionals seek to teach us something. But, in the end, we reserve the right to make our own informed decisions.
That, sir, is not illegal. Nor does it in any way amount to potential culpability, or negligence. It’s called free speech (see United States Constitution, Amendment I).
The CDC, the FDA, the AMA and many other government and medical organizations have ready access to the mainstream media. Average Americans, some of whom believe that such organizations do not always place the public welfare above their own specific agenda, are not allowed access to the same public soapbox. FreeRepublic is one of our answers to that inaccessibility. You would have us believe that we are somehow abusing our free speech rights by making use of this venue. You’ll not succeed.
As for the debate at hand, I do not know enough about the possible MMR/autism connection to voice an opinion. But I do know that the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and several British health organizations have declared that there have been no conclusive studies to support such an assertion.
That’s not good enough. Simply because all fifty states require children to receive the suspect MMR vaccination before they enter school or daycare.
Science is always a work in progress, and, the fact that there is a lack of conclusive evidence to support a theory that a vaccine may be doing harm is all the more reason to gather more (either supporting or debunking) evidence. Autism is a serious, incurable disorder. If even a small percentage of the occurrences of the disorder might be traced back to the administering of a vaccine, then a serious re-thinking of the cost/benefit analysis (as regards both freedom of choice, and potential health risk) is called for.
Furthermore, it is highly irreponsible to over generalize my positions as "decreasingly priortizing patient well-being". The fact of the matter is that I and other PHYSICIANS like me are the very individuals who are protecting YOU most!
Frankly, if I posted half of the information and experience that I have accrued, you couldn't handle the facts and the degree of graft.
Your assertion that Freepers are "intelligent" may be correct. However, these medical threads continue to fail to be intelligent. Instead, these threads are a ridiculous waste of time. It is not impressive to see vocally misguided and misinformed individuals being given unrestricted opportunities to post slander, libel, and proven false information. It is not a freedom to make false accusations. In addition, my comments only challenged one poster to prove his credentials. He continues to FAIL to do so. Thus, my conclusion is that he has no credentials to be making these medical judgements.
At once and in the exact same posting, you state on one hand that you are no less intelligent than a physician. While I respect your intelligence, you are clearly misinformed. Your statement regarding the official positions of the AMA, AAP, and CDC with respect to the MMR vaccine are false. You clearly have not a lick of scientific training nor clinical medical experience upon which to judge the facts. Without such training, you can not even fathom the epidemiological studies, even if I quoted them!
The fact of the matter is that this issue has been repeated discussed and wasted time for thousands. Free Republic is playing directly into the hands of tort and liability attorneys. This is not a matter of free speech. IT IS a matter of medical liability. If a person attacks this board by claiming that they followed medical advice relayed through this board, Free Republic could be held liable.
There does come a time when editorial judgement is required. It occurs when the existance of the media engine itself is threatened by the actions of a few misguided people.
There is NO DEBATE about MMR. The only debate is in your own head. When you wake up and join the rest of the nation in the 21st Century, you may want to actually READ a medical journal.
You aren't defending any free speech. What you are defending is a convicted child batterer and murderer. Thanks to TomB, I now understand the genesis of this ridiculously mistaken thread.
Like you, I don't have a fully formed opinion on the recent controversy surrounding the possibility that there might be a link between MMR vaccine, inflammatory bowel disease and autism. But the issue has been raised in some well-known medical journals and deserves to be aired. Any attempt to quell that debate here on FR is an outrage.
You might be interested to know that Congressman Burton has taken a personal interest in this. He got a commitment out of CDC at a recent hearing several months ago to open up CDC's VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) database to outside review. This could go a long way to settling this argument about MMR and autism. So far, CDC has been dragging their feet on this commitment to make their data available. While this certainly doesn't prove anything, it raises more questions as far as I'm concerned.
You also need to know that the British doctor who has raised these recent concerns with the MMR vaccine was recently fired from his job solely because of the controversial position he has taken. This despite the fact that his research, albeit not conclusive, was deemed worthy enough to have been published in several well-known, peer-reviewed journals including Lancet. Another alarm bell.
Sadly, I know a bit about this topic. I have a form of Autism... onset occured shortly after a very bad "reaction" to the MMR.
I have no objection to your discussion of anything. I do object to falsehoods being continually perpetrated by people who are parroting falsehoods planted by rather sinister people.
MMR and other vaccines have been studied and restudied. The vaccines are excellent, well-tolerated, and there is not one child who has developed autism from these vaccines.
I quote California State Law:
2053. Any person who willfully, under circumstances or conditions which cause or create risk of great bodily harm, serious physical or mental illness, or death, practices or attempts to practice, or advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing, any system or mode of treating the sick or afflicted in this state, or diagnoses, treats, operates for, or prescribes for any ailment, blemish, deformity, disease, disfigurement, disorder, injury, or other physical or mental condition of any person, without having at the time of so doing a valid, unrevoked and unsuspended certificate as provided in this chapter, or without being authorized to perform that act pursuant to a certificate obtained in accordance with some other provision of law, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not exceeding one year or in the state prison. The remedy provided in this section shall not preclude any other remedy provided by law.
You are once again leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I said that the large majority of FReepers who post on medical/drug-related threads exhibit a rising mistrust of a medical profession which decreasingly prioritizes patient well-being in favor of other less altruistic considerations. Where, exactly, do you see any personal references to you (or your positions on this thread) in that statement?
Frankly, if I posted half of the information and experience that I have accrued, you couldn't handle the facts and the degree of graft.
You know what I (someone of whose intellectual abilities you have absolutely no knowledge) can and cannot handle? Please do not make such assumptions in my behalf. It smacks of a certain kind of condescending arrogance.
Your statement regarding the official positions of the AMA, AAP, and CDC with respect to the MMR vaccine are false.
Where exactly did I make any reference to ‘the official positions of the AMA, AAP and CDC with respect to the MMR vaccine’? My only reference to those three organizations was the statement ‘The CDC, the FDA, the AMA and many other government and medical organizations have ready access to the mainstream media.’ That was simply an attempt to point out that posters on FreeRepublic do not have the same access to the ear of the mainstream media as do large and powerful government/medical organizations – which is why we will not be silenced, by groundless intimidation, from expressing our views here on this forum.
(Except for the AAP, I am not aware that either of the other two organizations has taken a position with respect to the MMR vaccine, nor did I anywhere suggest that they have.)
You clearly have not a lick of scientific training nor clinical medical experience upon which to judge the facts. Without such training, you can not even fathom the epidemiological studies, even if I quoted them!
I’ll not defend myself against your condescending arguments, except to say that judging a person’s ability to comprehend something that you would place in front of her (as you did when you stated that (1) I ‘couldn’t handle’ the facts if you posted them, and (2) without medical training, I could ‘not even fathom the epidemiological studies’ even if you quoted them) renders any further debate with you pointless. I wouldn’t want to subject you to an exchange of opinions/information between yourself and someone whom you have obviously decided is incapable of rising to your level of expertise/comprehension/understanding. (Something tells me you may have a bit of trouble finding someone who meets your expectations….and one-man debates can prove to be very boring….)
Please stick to the issues on this thread...
my original point to you and TomB again is that tehre are legitimate questions about the safety of vaccinations in this country...
let me refresh your memory by re-posting the first paragraph of the editorial
Evening Standard editorial comment
Parents have good reason to be concerned about the possibility of a mumps outbreak in London. The epidemiological history of this infectious disease suggests that mumps is unpleasant but hardly ever fatal to children. In rare cases it causes meningitis or encephalitis; it can also cause infertility in boys. Before there was a vaccine for mumps, it tended to kill no more than five people a year.
Yet it is impossible to be certain that half a century of vaccination against the disease will not have weakened our natural immunity to the extent that a renewed outbreak would produce unusually severe symptoms.
perhaps you should threaten The Evening Standard for practicing medicine without a license too...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.